| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to hear.
"A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already brittle public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With rural bus services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban train lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point." See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Tom Sacold" wrote in message ... The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to hear. "A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already brittle public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With rural bus services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban train lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point." LOL Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) and long term improvement in capacity. See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those
that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. And even less people would if motoring was cheaper in rural areas due to the congestion tax. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) So it ends up where people can no longer afford to drive, and they can't afford to take the train either, so everybody just sits at home all day and the economy goes to pot. Great thinking. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Chris Jones" wrote in message
... Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. And even less people would if motoring was cheaper in rural areas due to the congestion tax. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) So it ends up where people can no longer afford to drive, and they can't afford to take the train either, so everybody just sits at home all day and the economy goes to pot. Great thinking. you missed out saying that if more money was spent on road maintenance rather than being stolen by the government to waste on crap like economic migrants and if councils stopped purposely creating congestion(for their congestion tax), then traffic would move much quicker. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Chris Jones" wrote in message ... Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. And even less people would if motoring was cheaper in rural areas due to the congestion tax. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) So it ends up where people can no longer afford to drive, and they can't afford to take the train either, so everybody just sits at home all day and the economy goes to pot. Great thinking. L.OL. They are only interested in penalising the motorist! |
The effects of a road congestion tax
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:09:07 GMT, "Diversity Isn't A Codeword For
Anti-White" wrote: you missed out saying that if more money was spent on road maintenance rather than being stolen by the government to waste on crap like economic migrants and if councils stopped purposely creating congestion(for their congestion tax), then traffic would move much quicker. I agree you can be standing in one street in my city and see the street you want to get to maybe to make a delivery or something and due to the no entry's and one way systems to drive to that street from street A you have got to drive at least one mile when on foot you can be there in less than a minute. And what is more I always under stud that a ring road went ROUND a city or town Preston city council here in Lancashire decided it would be novel to build a ring road right through the fcking city center ! . Grant . |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Tom Sacold" wrote in message
... The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to hear. "A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already brittle public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With rural bus services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban train lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point." See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord. Funny thing, free market forces. -- "Transport is the life blood of the economy." |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Chris Jones" wrote in message ... Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. And even less people would if motoring was cheaper in rural areas due to the congestion tax And so what? Why should there be empty buses running around all over the countryside belching out diesel fumes and doing about 5mpg? When people say "get people out of cars and into buses/trains" they don't mean in the middle of Wales, but in congested urban/commuter town areas. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) So it ends up where people can no longer afford to drive, and they can't afford to take the train either, so everybody just sits at home all day and the economy goes to pot. Great thinking. Or maybe Sainsburies stores in London will by their beef from Kent Farmers rather than Highland farmers, and Sainsubries in Glasgow will by from Highland farmers rather than Kent farmers. You think I am kidding but there are a lot of inneficiencies like this floating around. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Ian Smith" wrote in message ... "Tom Sacold" wrote in message ... The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to hear. "A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already brittle public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With rural bus services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban train lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point." See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord. Funny thing, free market forces. But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. -- "Transport is the life blood of the economy." |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:
"Chris Jones" wrote in message ... Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. And even less people would if motoring was cheaper in rural areas due to the congestion tax. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) So it ends up where people can no longer afford to drive, and they can't afford to take the train either, so everybody just sits at home all day and the economy goes to pot. Great thinking. you missed out saying that if more money was spent on road maintenance rather than being stolen by the government to waste on crap like economic migrants and if councils stopped purposely creating congestion(for their congestion tax), then traffic would move much quicker. Do you mean the money raised by road tax and tax on fuel? ie the taxes /already/ levied on the motorist? I completely agree. -- Nick H (UK) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Oliver Keating wrote:
"Ian Smith" wrote in message ... "Tom Sacold" wrote in message ... The effects of a congestion tax may not be what NuLabour want to hear. "A national road charge will put more pressure on Britain's already brittle public transport infrastructure, Ministers have been warned. With rural bus services already under threat, and overcrowding endemic on urban train lines, public transport would be stretched to breaking point." See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord. Funny thing, free market forces. But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. -- "Transport is the life blood of the economy." Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is. Free? Absolutely no way. Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway. -- Nick H (UK) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
... But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. ... Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads back to the wealthy! Matt B. -- |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message ... Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is. Free? Absolutely no way. Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway. Yep, fuel tax is pretty sensible as it does tax usage, however it doesn't charge for using congested roads at times of congestion. Hence someone driving down a country road is charged the same as someone trying to use a city road in the rush hour. Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the rush hour traffic more? Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more freely. I also think people should distinguish between Labour raising additional taxes (extra tax burden) and a government trying to redistribute how those taxes are raised. I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing to the economy as opposed to taxing someone for using up a limited valuable public resource? It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging. -- Nick H (UK) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message ...
But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. But, of course, free market forces only work if there's competition, not a gang of armed thugs charging motorists an arm and a leg to drive while stealing large chunks of the roads for their cronies in the bus industry. I agree with you, though: all roads should be privatised and all motoring taxes should be abolished. Let private companies run the roads instead. Mark |
The effects of a road congestion tax
In article , Frank X
wrote: Yep, fuel tax is pretty sensible as it does tax usage, however it doesn't charge for using congested roads at times of congestion. It does, in that you use far more petrol when driving in congested traffic: my Honda Jazz has a mpg meter which although not 100% accurate shows that I am get around 50mpg driving back from the all-night Tesco at past midnight when there is next to no traffic, and only just over half that in stop-start traffic. But I doubt whether anyone (except perhaps some hauliers) chooses to travel at a less busy time to save money - time perhaps. -- Tony Bryer |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
Dan Holdsworth wrote:
Another golden oldie from Captain Clueless himself! So, you price the car drivers off the road. Then the ex-car drivers get stung a second time because the busses and trains can't cope, and the operators cannot raise the millions needed to build more tracks. Guess who cops the blame? You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians who implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place. Think before posting, please; you might shed the reputation as a bumbling nitwit if you did. I think you need some lessons in GCSE Economics In a true market people pay the cost of the goods they use, including the cost of environmental damage. I'm sure no body would dispute that, for example, open cast mining should pay the cost of restoring the landscape and not leave the mess that some 19th century stuff did. Congestion is an environmental cost of too many cars, as is noise, and air pollution. Drivers should pay this cost. As an example, in Cambridge the DfT estimate that the congestion cost of each extra 'across Cambridge' trip in the morning peak is TEN POUNDS (so a 'Ken' charge would be cheap) In London the 'congestion charge' has resulted in a 16% reduction in trips, but a 30% reduction in congestion. I'd expect most 'White Van' men who value their time would have saved much more than the 'congestion charge' in a single day. Buses and Taxis are also be much more efficient. If you realy want to understand the issues 'Travel in Towns: Jam Yesterday, Jam Today, and Jam Tomorrow', a book written in 1990 is what you need. see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...095893-7558213 Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than 'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads from the M11 into London save? The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy Clarksons of this world Jim Chisholm |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Dan Holdsworth" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:28:28 -0000, Oliver Keating was popularly supposed to have said: You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians who implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place. Nah, the ex-motorists will be blamed -- again! For not living and working in the correct places. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Mark" wrote in message om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... But, of course, free market forces only work if there's competition, not a gang of armed thugs charging motorists an arm and a leg to drive while stealing large chunks of the roads for their cronies in the bus industry. I agree with you, though: all roads should be privatised and all motoring taxes should be abolished. Let private companies run the roads instead. Well it' worked for the railways!! /sarcasm |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Frank X" wrote in message ...
Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the rush hour traffic more? Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic lights, etc? Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more freely. Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads, but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little... it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse to levy another tax on us. I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing to the economy No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get to work to pay our huge tax bills? It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging. We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big difference between them stealing money from you through your employer, and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already been taxed at 40%, at that. 'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'. Mark |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Mark wrote:
"Frank X" wrote in message ... Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the rush hour traffic more? Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic lights, etc? Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more freely. Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads, but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little... it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse to levy another tax on us. Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 - 473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT). Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find. On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a number of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been transferred to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km. I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing to the economy No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get to work to pay our huge tax bills? It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging. We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big difference between them stealing money from you through your employer, and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already been taxed at 40%, at that. Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what resources need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing more to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying. 'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'. Mark Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer. Usage-based taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform would probably be the right direction. (See http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in the transport system. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
... Mark wrote: "Frank X" wrote in message ... Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the rush hour traffic more? Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic lights, etc? Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more freely. Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads, but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little... it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse to levy another tax on us. Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 - 473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT). Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find. On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a number of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been transferred to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km. I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing to the economy No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get to work to pay our huge tax bills? It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging. We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big difference between them stealing money from you through your employer, and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already been taxed at 40%, at that. Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what resources need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing more to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying. 'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'. Mark Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer. Usage-based taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform would probably be the right direction. (See http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in the transport system. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all, varied by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished. Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of government, and vote accordingly. If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence people to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting the environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy and emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit non-aggressively). I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved by government intervention. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Ian Smith wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message ... Mark wrote: "Frank X" wrote in message ... Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the rush hour traffic more? Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic lights, etc? Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more freely. Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads, but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little... it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse to levy another tax on us. Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 - 473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT). Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find. On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a number of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been transferred to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km. I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing to the economy No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get to work to pay our huge tax bills? It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging. We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big difference between them stealing money from you through your employer, and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already been taxed at 40%, at that. Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what resources need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing more to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying. 'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'. Mark Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer. Usage-based taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform would probably be the right direction. (See http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in the transport system. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all, varied by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished. Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of government, and vote accordingly. The idea of ETR isn't to add a tax, it's to replace all of the existing ones with ones based around what causes unsustainable damage to the environment. If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence people to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting the environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy and emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit non-aggressively). A free market for transport is impossible under the current system where modes are treated separately by the government when proposing new schemes, and where the current cost-benefit analysis model is extremely flawed, since many of the values used in them are applied to things which are essentially "not for sale". The current market is biased in favour of car travel so naturally a modal shift is occurring in that direction. Targets are a rather blunt instrument to apply directly to the industry; rather by using taxation to achieve targets, the true cost of environmental damage can be compensated for. I would also venture that the USA is hardly the best model for an environmentally sound system. I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved by government intervention. Reforming the tax system to be fully environmentally-based would (theoretically of course) shift sustainability in the right direction by market forces alone, without any further government intervention. It's only sensible to tax the use of resources which affect everyone. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message ... Oliver Keating wrote: "Ian Smith" wrote in message ... "Tom Sacold" wrote in message ... See: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord. Funny thing, free market forces. But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. -- "Transport is the life blood of the economy." Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is. Free? Absolutely no way. Fiar enough, but isn't that why such a congestion tax would be "revenue neutral"? Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway. Fuel tax though depends on the efficiency of cars - diesel cars pay less but cause just as much congestion, and arguably more pollution (but that is another debate). Also, people who commute 3 miles in highly congested traffic will pay far, far less than people who commute 30 miles on the motorway, and that isn't necessirly good. Also, fuel duty is not time-discriminative. -- Nick H (UK) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Mark" wrote in message om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. But, of course, free market forces only work if there's competition, not a gang of armed thugs charging motorists an arm and a leg to drive while stealing large chunks of the roads for their cronies in the bus industry. Hmm, I've been driving for 20 years and in all that time I've never been accosted by a gang of armed thugs trying to charge me money. Maybe you just live in a rough area, especially if they are trying to steal the roads as well. Still, people will nick anything nowadays. I agree with you, though: all roads should be privatised and all motoring taxes should be abolished. Let private companies run the roads instead. And they will of course let you drive on their roads for nothing. -- AndyA Mark |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Matt Bourke" wrote in message om... "Oliver Keating" wrote in message ... ... But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1) (1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably crude in terms of road pricing as to be ignored. ... Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads back to the wealthy! Yes that is a problem. Perhaps the tax you pay could be based on as a percentage determined by your car's value and CO2 output, rather like with company car tax. That would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax. Matt B. -- |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Dan Holdsworth" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:28:28 -0000, Oliver Keating was popularly supposed to have said: LOL Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those that do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey. A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved by allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be used to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate reduction in demand (due to higher prices) and long term improvement in capacity. Another golden oldie from Captain Clueless himself! So, you price the car drivers off the road. Then the ex-car drivers get stung a second time because the busses and trains can't cope, and the operators cannot raise the millions needed to build more tracks. Guess who cops the blame? You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians who implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place. Think before posting, please; you might shed the reputation as a bumbling nitwit if you did. You are an idiot and however you manged to get a PhD really makes me wonder. Was it a PhD in playschool? Did you figure out which holes to put the different shapes in? -- Dan Holdsworth PhD By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"J. Chisholm" wrote in message ... Dan Holdsworth wrote: Another golden oldie from Captain Clueless himself! So, you price the car drivers off the road. Then the ex-car drivers get stung a second time because the busses and trains can't cope, and the operators cannot raise the millions needed to build more tracks. Guess who cops the blame? You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians who implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place. Think before posting, please; you might shed the reputation as a bumbling nitwit if you did. I think you need some lessons in GCSE Economics I totally agree :) In a true market people pay the cost of the goods they use, including the cost of environmental damage. I'm sure no body would dispute that, for example, open cast mining should pay the cost of restoring the landscape and not leave the mess that some 19th century stuff did. Yes - to those in the know, "internalising the externality" Congestion is an environmental cost of too many cars, as is noise, and air pollution. Drivers should pay this cost. As an example, in Cambridge the DfT estimate that the congestion cost of each extra 'across Cambridge' trip in the morning peak is TEN POUNDS (so a 'Ken' charge would be cheap) Indeed. The external cost of a car driving into central London was estimated to be between £5-£8, so really Londoners are lucky it was set at the lower bound. In London the 'congestion charge' has resulted in a 16% reduction in trips, but a 30% reduction in congestion. I'd expect most 'White Van' men who value their time would have saved much more than the 'congestion charge' in a single day. Yes this is right, and highlights and important subtlety - when roads are made stationary by heavy traffic, their efficiency in cars/minute plummets. Also, because people spend more time on their journeys, they are contributing to congestion longer. Just a small reduction in traffic can greatly improve journey times as road capacity is improved, and people spend less time on their journeys. Buses and Taxis are also be much more efficient. If you realy want to understand the issues 'Travel in Towns: Jam Yesterday, Jam Today, and Jam Tomorrow', a book written in 1990 is what you need. see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...095893-7558213 Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than 'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads from the M11 into London save? The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy Clarksons of this world We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is not on unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever true, only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public transport service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would actually be 0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do it on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite being 75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial. Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from fares, rather than public money. Jim Chisholm |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Oliver Keating wrote:
Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than 'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads from the M11 into London save? The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy Clarksons of this world We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is not on unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever true, only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public transport service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would actually be 0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do it on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite being 75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial. Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from fares, rather than public money. Have you been reading: http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PD...ityforRSA.pdf? I agree that we shouldn't do things to encourage more and longer trips, but isn't that just what we've done for private cars? FREE roads paid out of general taxation, and cheap petrol obtained by beating up poor and vulnerable countries? Since doing some stats on trips on Great Western Main line into London from Reading in early 1970's I've felt we've made commuting fares too cheap. Then an 'annual' season ticket gave a daily rate(assuming 220 tpa) cheaper than a cheap day return. Perhaps what we need to do is ensure car trips pay true cost? Jim Chisholm (who cycles, drives and travels by train about 3k miles by each mode each year, and hasn't polluted the sky for years. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"J. Chisholm" wrote in message ... Oliver Keating wrote: Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than 'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads from the M11 into London save? The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy Clarksons of this world We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is not on unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever true, only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public transport service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would actually be 0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do it on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite being 75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial. Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from fares, rather than public money. Have you been reading: http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PD...ityforRSA.pdf? I am not convinced by some of the doomsday vision being put foreward by some of these people (there are many people concerned about hypermobility). I do think that transport infrastructure should be allowed to grow, but I think a lot of growth in transport could be done by making things a lot more efficient eg supermarkets using *local* suppliers etc. This sort of thing reduces transport demand without any adverse economic effects. I agree that we shouldn't do things to encourage more and longer trips, but isn't that just what we've done for private cars? FREE roads paid out of general taxation, and cheap petrol obtained by beating up poor and vulnerable countries? But road travel geniunely isn't free. Fuel duty and VAT form 85% of the cost of petrol and diesel, and there is also VED. Now in terms of money spend on roads v money recieved in taxes from the motorist, the motorist is definately *net* taxed, not subsidised. Whether this is still true if you include the external costs of motoring (accidents, noise, congestion, pollution) is a subject of hot debate - as you can see motorists could argue for exmaple, that they already "pay" for congestion as they are the ones who have to sit in it! Since doing some stats on trips on Great Western Main line into London from Reading in early 1970's I've felt we've made commuting fares too cheap. Then an 'annual' season ticket gave a daily rate(assuming 220 tpa) cheaper than a cheap day return. Perhaps what we need to do is ensure car trips pay true cost? The problem is that fuel duty is an incredibly crude lever, because the "true cost" of your journey depends strongly on time of day and location, only a satellite based congestion charging system could account for this. Jim Chisholm (who cycles, drives and travels by train about 3k miles by each mode each year, and hasn't polluted the sky for years. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"J. Chisholm" wrote in message ... snip Jim Chisholm (who cycles, *drives* and travels by train about 3k miles by each mode each year, and hasn't polluted the sky for years. (my emphasis) I'd like to know where I can find one of these non-polluting cars. And trains, for that matter. And computers as well. |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
The effects of a road congestion tax
In article
om, Dan Holdsworth writes [1] Doing it this way, you could also look for mobile phones that appear to be in use and moving along a motorway, and flag these locations up to the local police, for much improved enforcement of anti-mobile laws. There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. -- Clive D.W. Feather, writing for himself | Home: Tel: +44 20 8371 1138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Written on my laptop; please observe the Reply-To address |
The effects of a road congestion tax
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
In article om, Dan Holdsworth writes [1] Doing it this way, you could also look for mobile phones that appear to be in use and moving along a motorway, and flag these locations up to the local police, for much improved enforcement of anti-mobile laws. There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. It doesn't come into effect until 1 Dec 2003, and it only affects the use of a hand-held mobile by the driver. What I assume you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use was legal. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Dan Holdsworth" wrote in message ... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 19:46:09 -0000, Oliver Keating was popularly supposed to have said: [...] The problem is that fuel duty is an incredibly crude lever, because the "true cost" of your journey depends strongly on time of day and location, only a satellite based congestion charging system could account for this. Actually, a satelite-based system is one of the poorer options for this sort of pricing. GPS satelites are USA-controlled systems. If, as has happened in the past, the US military decide that their enemies are using it, the US government has the option to degrade the signals. So, if you use satelites, you're beholden to a foreign power which although it is our friend at the moment, may not be so in future. This is not a sensible course of action. The question of over-reliance on GPS systems (in general) is quite an interesting one. However, in my opinion we will become more reliant on GPS as time goes on, rather than less, especially with people like Air traffic control talking about moving to a GPS based system rather than ground based radar systems for aircraft. If this happens it would have such far-reaching implications if the USA did turn off the signals that I doubt they would do it. However, even if they did, I don't see why Europe couldn't set up its own system. You need a minimum of 4 satellites with atomic clocks on board (although typically 7 is better for improved accuracy). I reckon these could be launched into orbit for around ~£1billion - not a huge cost spread over all of Europe. The other problem is that the signal from the satelites is pretty weak, and thus susceptible to jamming from the ground. Whilst jamming detectors could be built in, this would not stop people deploying jammers near motorways to deliberately trigger such sensors. That sort of shenanigans would annoy an awful lot of people, and lead to the system getting a reputation for being crap. But satellite-based navigation systems rely on other information too, like current road speed and compass heading, and along with knowing what the road map looks like, it can make a good estimate of where you are even if it looses the signal for some time. Mind you, that'd happen anyway. This government seems to automatically out- source big IT projects to the likes of Crapita and Electronic Disaster Systems, neither of whom have what you'd call an impressive track record. Now, if you went with a system that used mobile phone cells as a means of tracking vehicles [1] you might well be onto a winner. Mobile phone units have a much, much stronger signal than do GPS satelites, they're much more robust, and the tracking technology already exists. This sort of thing could also be used to spot and fine speeding motorists, rendering obsolete all Gatso, Truvelo and other speed cameras at a stroke; think of the savings! There is one key problem here, and it is to do with privacy. The thing is, a GPS system works one way only, despite what people think it cannot be used to track you. A sat nav congestion system would rely on the system itself working out the charges, and information on where you have travelled never needs to be sent to a central authority, therefore ruling out any misuse of that data, not to mention the various privacy issues that could make such a scheme unpopular. With a mobile phone system, the authority knows *exactly* where you have been, at what time etc. etc. That has to be a disadvantage, not just the risk of misuse, but simply because a lot of the public may simply find that unnacceptable. [1] Doing it this way, you could also look for mobile phones that appear to be in use and moving along a motorway, and flag these locations up to the local police, for much improved enforcement of anti-mobile laws. Although of course, with hands-free kits being legal, and legitamate use by passengers, I think the police would ignore it. -- Dan Holdsworth PhD By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion |
The effects of a road congestion tax
How prey, do they propose to enforce the use of satellite and / or cellular
phone tracker systems for cars ? This is a madly expensive way to TRY to solve congestion in relatively small number of places. And, as with petrol, people will just pay what it takes to go where they want to go and when they want to go. Congestion is self defeating anyway, so unless you build more roads, you may as well do nothing ! It would be much better to concentrate of keeping the traffic moving, sort of stand Livingstone on his stupid head.... Regards, Martin |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Martin²" wrote in message ... How prey, do they propose to enforce the use of satellite and / or cellular phone tracker systems for cars ? This is a madly expensive way to TRY to solve congestion in relatively small number of places. And, as with petrol, people will just pay what it takes to go where they want to go and when they want to go. Congestion is self defeating anyway, so unless you build more roads, you may as well do nothing ! It would be much better to concentrate of keeping the traffic moving, sort of stand Livingstone on his stupid head.... Regards, Martin Congestion charging is about keeping the traffic moving though. You remove about 10% of the traffic by pricing it out, and then the traffic can move, road capacity increases, and journey times drop ~30% |
The effects of a road congestion tax
"Richard J." wrote the following in:
Clive D. W. Feather wrote: In article d.ntl.c om, Dan Holdsworth writes [1] Doing it this way, you could also look for mobile phones that appear to be in use and moving along a motorway, and flag these locations up to the local police, for much improved enforcement of anti-mobile laws. There is no law against the use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. Yes, there is. The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2003. It doesn't come into effect until 1 Dec 2003, and it only affects the use of a hand-held mobile by the driver. That's not a law against use of a mobile phone while moving on a motorway. That's a law against the use of a mobile phone while driving. What I assume you meant was that the system would not be able to distinguish between legal and illegal use of a mobile mobile, not that all use was legal. He didn't say all use was legal. -- message by Robin May, but you can call me Mr Smith. Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing". Then and than are different words! |
The effects of a road congestion tax
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:19 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk